Challenge the Philosophy - Inquiry 6-9

6. Inquiry:

"I humbly submit, that I do not have any new evidence, other than that which I have presented in my Original Entry #351. Therefore I am forced to query the conclusions you have reached in your responses.

I am interested in knowing 'how' it has come about that I have 7 odd entries. I have continually maintained throughout that there is only 1 entry on my part, i.e. Entry #351. Anyone following my entry from the beginning can see this for themselves. Entry #351 stands by itself as the ONLY entry I have ever made to the Competition. Accept for 2 comments all further contributions to the Competition by me were DISPUTES and not entries. Can you 'more reasonably' deny this?

My next query is, why are you continually asserting that I am attempting to show the proposition ‘Itself’ has Absolute Truth-Value? I have already agreed that the proposition itself has NO Absolute Truth-Value. What you however, continually fail to recognize, is the fact, that what I am really pointing out, is that the word 'truly' indicates the inherence of the Absolute Truth-Value of the proposition, and NOT the inclusion of it.

I previously pointed out that you yourselves limited the Absolute Truth-Value of the proposition in order to render it as a challenge in the first place. The Absolute Truth- Value itself has not ceased to exist merely because you limited the proposition. What you are continually not admitting is the fact that the ORIGINAL proposition containing the Absolute Truth-Value, is the proposition that you were required to limit in the first instance, in order that the NEW proposition you rendered for the Challenge would have no Absolute Truth-Value.

You have obviously either failed or refused to realize the precise nature of my argument. The Absolute Truth-Value of the Challenge proposition is not included in the proposition itself, but its inherence is shown by the word - ’truly’. That is to say, the word 'truly' shows that the Absolute Truth-Value of the proposition continues to exist in the Original proposition, even though it has been totally excluded from the New proposition.

So the query simply boils down to one inescapable fact. Can you deny, that the Original proposition reads - ‘We CAN truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time’? If you feel you are able to, then you must point out exactly to all contestants, what precisely you limited, if in fact, it was not the Absolute Truth-Value of the Original proposition. In order to derive the New proposition with its limitation of and complete exclusion of Absolute Truth-Value, that very Absolute Truth- Value would have needed to exist in the first instance, else you would have had no need to limit that very Absolute Truth-Value itself in order to render the New proposition as a Challenge.

Also, the New proposition is the antagonistic one and not the Original, precisely because the possibility precedes the impossibility. It is the impossible that antagonizes the possible, and therefore the Original proposition is 'more reasonable'.

The New proposition cannot exist without being a direct contradiction of the Original proposition and of necessity has to contradict itself, because even though it has limited the Absolute Truth-Value and excluded it, it is still required to refer to it in order to make sense.

You have failed to realize from the start, that my Original and only Entry #351 merely RE-INSTATED the existing Absolute Truth-Value. The procedure I used is no less - 'more reasonable', than the procedure you used when you limited the Absolute Truth-Value in the first place. It is a total inversion of the method you used and therefore equal to it from 'our limited perception' with 'more reasonableness'.

My next query whilst appearing to be conceited is, in fact, merely educational. This is a KEY point of the Competition, and in fairness to ALL contestants you need to clarify your position entirely:
Do you agree, that the correct meaning of the word ‘reason’ is an essential requirement of the Organizer (s)? Surely to judge all entries with 'more reasonableness' the Committee needs to understand the meaning of reason?
The problem is that you have 'equated' reason with 'thinking' as though reason itself were thinking itself. This is clearly unacceptable and merely requires that you brush up a little on your etymological understanding. I am sorry to put it this way, but I must return to basics as you leave me no alternative.
The etymological roots of 'reason' and 'thinking' clearly show that the 2 words have entirely different meanings. Where the dictionary inputs 'thinking' as a means to translate 'reason', it is not inferring that 'thinking' is 'reason' as you appear to believe.
‘Reason’ - literally translates as - ‘rational thinking calculation’ and is clearly an APPLIED METHOD OF THINKING and NOT 'thinking' itself.
This is then also precisely 'why' -’Thinking is the basis of Reason’, and not vice versa.

What we think is, for the most part, irrelevant, but the methods we use when we think are of Supreme importance from the Ontological viewpoint. True Ontological Thinking is based on an advanced form of reasoning, and always demands the correct translation of words and their meaning in the first instance. How are we able to apply a 'more reasonableness' if we are unable to deduce firstly the correct meaning of the words we use?

I admit, that - ‘dynamic comparison’ is a pretty cool definition for 'reason', but it is not conclusive, as the ‘what’ of comparison is avoided and therefore not shown. In other words you have failed to show what you really mean by the definition, and what you really mean is that 'reason' is a dynamic comparison of thinking. If you disagree with this then you need to point out - why? In any event it is 'more reasonable' to subscribe to real definitions rather than to run around willy-nilly making up our own definitions as we go. What gives you the 'more reasonable' right to re-define the meaning of reason?
How can you deny that personal definitions must of necessity be less representational than real definitions?

My next query deals with knowledge and thinking and again re- emphasizes the fact that because you have not understood the true facts of reasoning you are in fact incapable of proper reasoning. The specific query is how can you assume that I am insinuating that thinking precedes knowledge?

To say, as you do, that we need knowledge to think, is incorrect. What is the basis for this statement. Thinking is a native capacity (in fact we cannot stop thinking) and exists irrespective of whether knowledge exists or not. We have no choice in the matter of thinking, it is a natural occurrence that we are unable to prevent.
I do not assume that knowledge precedes thinking by the statement: - ‘All knowledge is a result of thinking’. I have tried to explain this earlier, but confess I was not aware then that I would be required to both think and reason on your behalf. It is unclear to you which, if any precedes the other only because you have not thought about it and applied reason to your thinking.

‘All knowledge is a result of thinking’ has Absolute Truth- Value, because 'Thinking' is the necessary perceiving faculty required to attain knowledge whether it is 'indirect conscious knowledge' or 'direct conscious knowledge'. However, if 'direct conscious knowledge is available 'it' would ‘precede thinking’, but if we were able to perceive it we would require a perceiving faculty, and that faculty is thinking, therefore we would have attained it as a result of the fact that we are able to think.

From 'our limited perception' thinking is an unavoidable necessity for the perception of knowledge. Whether any knowledge exists that we are unaware of is entirely besides the point. To know anything means to be conscious of it, and we know that we are conscious because we can think. The statement is entirely reasonable because the Absolute Truth- Value is established as a fact, by simple analysis of the meaning of the terms involved and applied reasoning of the results. The only infinite regress that exists, is in your imagination, because you were unable to resolve the issue by reason.

Knowledge is both what we know and what can be known. Constant progress indicates that ‘New’ knowledge is ours for discovery, but somebody is always required to perceive it first, and there is no way to perceive it other than through the perceiving faculty of thought, therefore it is always a result of thinking. You have obviously taken the statement at face value without thinking about it.

I submit these queries for clarification, because without this clarification my Entry and its ensuing disputes are being shown out of context by your responses and in order to encourage the 'more reasonableness' you profess to maintain."

protomutant July 9 2002

Response:

You are mistaken as to what is the original proposition, and that we limited the absolute truth-value of the [original] proposition in order to render it as a challenge in the first place.

The original proposition is NOT "we can truly know who we are, in part and in whole, and be who we are at the same time." The original proposition is "we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time." It comes from Garvey’s book, "I Am Existence" (1997). In order to make the proposition more clear, it has been changed to "we cannot truly know who we are and be who we are at the same time", and then changed again to, "we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time." The proposition has been always asserted with limited truth-value, so there was no need as you claim to limit the absolute truth-value in the first instance, nor does the insertion of the word "truly" indicate an inherence of absolute truth-value.

To make it clear as we state in the response to Entry 352, your Entry 351 fails to overcome the proposition because it merely establishes the possibility of overcoming the proposition.

Your statement "all knowledge is a result of thinking" is refutable, because it does not follow how there could be thinking without some form of knowledge (or belief) part of thinking. However, to claim that all new knowledge is a result of thinking is a different matter, but even then there needs to be knowledge already present for there to be thinking.

Also, your defense of the absolute truth-value of the your statement is highly questionable. We quote:

"The statement is entirely reasonable because the Absolute Truth- Value is established as a fact, by simple analysis of the meaning[s] of the terms involved and applied reasoning of the results."

Reason as defined by us, the dynamic of comparison, refers to reason itself. Whereas your definition of reason taken from a dictionary appears to refer to the act of reasoning. We do not view reason as an applied method of thinking. We view it as an inherent part of all human thought. Viz., thinking entails reason. Therefore, we contend that all human thought is rational at some level. Further, that reason itself is the basis for thinking (comparative phenomenon), and that thinking and reasoning are fundamentally the same things. If you can more reasonably improve on these definitions of reason, and reasoning and thinking by all means.

Other issue:

As already stated to you, we post disputes in the dispute section and in the entry section, in order to give them more exposure. So you have had, one entry, and six entries in the form of disputes.

7. Inquiry:

Reply to the response to Inquiry 6

"1) - You claim the Original Proposition is:

‘We cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time’

2) - The proposition has been always asserted with limited truth-value.

My Inquiry is:

How was Garvey able to 'assert' the proposition with limited truth-value, unless he knew with Absolute Truth-Value that the proposition was ‘True’ with limited truth-value?

The Committee admits that he didn't, in that both he & they agree that although they don't know for sure, they believe it is impossible to overcome the proposition.

The proposition is therefore a personal belief based on impossibility & as you yourselves admit has no Absolute Truth-Value. Do you agree that personal belief, has no Absolute Truth-Value?

If so, why do you find it necessary for someone else to overcome the proposition (which has no Absolute Truth-Value) with Absolute Truth-Value.

It is only 'impossible' to overcome a proposition if it has Absolute Truth-Value.

Therefore, Garvey's belief of 'impossibility' accepted by the Committee is necessarily based on personal belief, as it has no Absolute Truth-Value.

Is it 'more reasonable' that you expect someone else’s belief, albeit based on 'possibility' to include Absolute Truth-Value, when yours does not?

NO - it is pure dogmatism of the highest order!

Therefore, I assert, that 'mere possibility' without Absolute Truth-Value overcomes the proposition.

This is precisely why I introduced Absolute Truth-Value into the equation in the first place .I.E. - ‘Absolute Being either exists or it does not’

You deny that you are required to prove that Absolute Being does not exist, yet I AM required to prove that it does. WHY ?.what are the grounds based on Absolute Truth-Value for your belief that it is impossible that it can exist ? You do not have any grounds with Absolute Truth-Value, other than the fact that you limited the unproved Truth-Value of an unproved proposition. I.E. - your grounds are based entirely on personal belief.

Unless you can agree that the proposition is overcome by merely showing the 'possibility' that it can be overcome, the Competition becomes an unreasonable & preposterous exercise in Philosophical dialogue doomed to go round in circles forever. To deny this is to cling dogmatically to the assumption that the personally held belief of the 'impossibility', of something with No Truth-Value, has Absolute Truth-Value. This is obviously contradictory, ridiculous & simply laughable.
To conclude therefore - if you deny the latter, the Competition must be declared 'null & void'.

Friends to delay the issue would merely substantiate Garvey's mental torment, in as much as he would have to admit defeat, by labeling his final publication for 'Inexpressible Publications' - ' Critique of Unreasonable Consciousness': Why I was wrong.

The 'inexpressible' has no Absolute Truth-Value whatsoever & will always remain unable to serve any useful purpose. Only that which has been expressed (and/or is capable of expression) is capable of embodying the Absolute Truth-Value of existence. Inability to express knowledge will always remain un-representational, whereas expression of knowledge allows for education & therefore includes representational potentiality."

protomutant July 17 2002

Response:

We are not asking you or anyone else to overcome the proposition by using absolute truth-value. We are asking you to overcome the proposition by more reasonably showing the existence of absolute truth-value. This requirement is consistent with our own position, in which we more reasonably defend the proposition using, among other things, nine arguments. Also, you are mistaken to assume that an assertion of limited truth-value requires that the asserter know the assertion of limited truth-value with absolute truth-value. Why can’t someone simply assert from one’s limited perspective? Why does an assertion necessarily entail absolute truth-value?!

Your contention that the proposition is a "personal belief", and therefore it cannot have absolute truth-value, does not make sense. Why can’t a personal belief have absolute truth-value? Why can’t a thought, belief, or imagination have absolute truth-value without us knowing that it does?

Also, you are mistaken to assume that the inexpressible has no absolute truth-value. It may have absolute truth-value without us knowing that it does, and it may have significance to our existence if we can more reasonably show its existence, or that it is the only thing that contains absolute truth-value. (Note, the inexpressible is identified through our reasoning. Viz., we reason the existence of the inexpressible, without actually expressing it.)

8. Inquiry:

"Dear Inexpressible Committee,

I am very interested in your debate and I thank you for your reply. However, I would be grateful if you could be patient with me and tell me what the essence of your query is. Do you wish to demonstrate, through words, tools of reason, that man can know himself and be himself (why is 'at the same time' important?) Or that it is more likely that he know himself rather than not know?
If you open the dictionary and start off with a word, such as "know" , the definition is: to be or feel certain of the truth or accuracy of (a fact, answer or piece of information). Then you wonder what they mean by truth or accuracy. Search for truth: the quality of being true, genuine or factual. True: in accordance with the truth (hello? they have used 'true' to describe truth and the word "truth to describe true") Accuracy: faithful representation of the truth (!). Real = existing or occurring in the physical world (now that is quite vast, it comprehends everything!) Same cyclic chain goes for the word intelligent or love etc. Now how can we ascribe words with a static meaning if they are so unreliably vague. There is no description of the word's overall significance, there are only other related words whose meaning is connected to the source word but still do not take you to the essence. Strange, no? Especially strange is the fact that we KNOW that the words are lacking the ab!
ility to depict the full picture. We know this because we have experienced and feel the vacuum between the flatness of the word and the multidimensional state of being. Does this mean that there are still sensations which haven't been given a word or because too many words are needed - like ingredients for a recipe of experience?
Having said this it becomes only like an endless verbal match, that of challenging the logic of phrases without considering the overall picture. The words do not mean much by themselves. What do you seek to resolve through this competition? Thank you for your patience and interesting thoughts."

Raya January 9 2003

Response:

Dear Raya,

Thank you for your interest and questions about the Competition.

In answer to your questions, it is possible through the use of words to more reasonably show true self-knowledge.

The Competition does not "seek" to more reasonably "resolve" anything. The Competition is about testing the more reasonableness of the Challenge Proposition through an international forum.

Also, the Competition is about an application of the Theory and Method of More Reasonableness, and since we do not believe the Proposition can more reasonably be overcome, the Competition is also about challenging those people who think they truly know whether in part or in whole. Viz., if the Proposition is correct it can have a humbling affect on humanity, and thereby encourage open-mindedness. (Note, the Theory of More Reasonableness is founded on our inability to more reasonably truly know, so if the Proposition is overcome, so is the theory, and therefore, the Competition is also about testing the Theory of More Reasonableness. Hence, the caption: "Challenge the Philosophy".)

We hope these comments are helpful.

Inexpressible Committee

9. Inquiry:

"I question the validity of the theory of more reasonableness. When Galileo sustained that the world was spherical I trust that many scientists at the time presented contrasting theories which could have been highly supported by the ‘theory of more reasonableness’ and yet now we know the truth. It is improbable that at the time people could ‘reasonably truly know’ (demonstrating the limits of reason) I could find other examples. It would therefore appear that something is either true or not and it is of little importance whether reason arrives to a chain of logical sequences that induces the mind to be inclined (to a certain degree!) in one way or another. In other words, there is no ‘level of truth’. The role of reasoning is secondary since our minds can only chew on a limited amount of knowledge - that of which we are aware of.

Is the question the following then: is it possible that man may know all his powers, his limitations, his own character, his emotions - his self? By self-knowledge do you mean to include: info about where he came from, why , how and where he will go?

‘Though we would add that from our perspective, we cannot know who we are because we need intrinsic separation from what we know in order to know. In other words, by knowledge being intrinsically separate from who we are, what we know cannot be who we are. ‘

What you mean by intrinsic separation? Is knowledge not a by- product of our minds interacting with life? It lives in our brains and hovers among our thoughts which in turn influence our decisions, actions and reactions. Would you affirm then that we can know what a tree is, since we are separated from it?"

Awaiting your response.
Sincerely,
Raya January 11 2003

Response:

Dear Raya:

It is unclear to us based on your argument why it is necessary that we perceive only truth and falsity. We contend that because truth as in complete knowledge cannot more reasonably be established, we can at best perceive only in terms of degrees (i.e. more or less reasonableness) from our limited perspective. Though obviously we could create a system of thought in which we think in terms of truth and falsity, but as mentioned in terms of theory, it does not more reasonably stand. (Note, we are not proposing a "level of truth"; we are proposing degrees of reasonableness with no absolute endpoints, and with no connection to so-called truth.)

The Challenge proposition refers to more reasonably showing complete part knowledge of who we are or complete whole knowledge of who we are. The complete part knowledge could refer to any aspect of who we are.

The notion of "intrinsic separation" is a secondary argument related to the proposition. The notion refers to the premise that we create our conscious knowledge (in relation to the external world), and therefore it follows that since we cannot create who we are through who we are, our thoughts are intrinsically separate from who we are. I.e. our thoughts as form are empty of who we are at a fundamental level.

Our physical separation from things like trees prevents us from truly (or directly) knowing them. Viz., separation establishes a barrier which in terms of knowledge results in representation.

Inexpressible Committee

Inquiry 2-5

| Competition 1 | Comp 1 Entries: 552- | Competition 2 | Competition 3 | US Pres. Deter. Process | MessageBoard | | Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home | LID 214